The result was delete. Courcelles 05:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I've just declined this as speedyspam. However, it doesn't appear to be notable. As A7 doesn't apply to software, I'm bringing it to AfD Ged UK 19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm confused as to why this is being considered for deletion. As I explained on the articles discussion page (to protest the speedy deletion), the article is up to standards. It provides a clear concise history of the program, compares the program to similar programs in a neutral manner, etcetera. In no way does the article advertise or compare itself in such a way that would indicate superiority. If you could point out specific sections that are troubling I will be happy to rewrite them. SZoo ( talk) 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I removed content from and reformatted the Features and flaws section to remove content that could be taken as an ad-like comparison. SZoo ( talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I've just declined this as speedyspam. However, it doesn't appear to be notable. As A7 doesn't apply to software, I'm bringing it to AfD Ged UK 19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm confused as to why this is being considered for deletion. As I explained on the articles discussion page (to protest the speedy deletion), the article is up to standards. It provides a clear concise history of the program, compares the program to similar programs in a neutral manner, etcetera. In no way does the article advertise or compare itself in such a way that would indicate superiority. If you could point out specific sections that are troubling I will be happy to rewrite them. SZoo ( talk) 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I removed content from and reformatted the Features and flaws section to remove content that could be taken as an ad-like comparison. SZoo ( talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply